Monday, February 28, 2005

A unique ’flying saucer’ developed by Russian inventors is aging at an aviation plant in Central Russia, the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper wrote on Thursday.

The ’saucer’ was invented in the late 1970s. The constructors joined a fuselage and wings into one thick “wing”, before trimming and rounding its edges. The saucer can lift more than half its weight, and its inner volume is 8-10 times bigger than the saloon of the plane it was made from.

The aircraft can take off from any surface with the help of an air cushion. In 1988 it started test flights in Nizhny Novgorod but was moved to Saratov after an accident. U.S. aviation constructors visited Nizhny Novgorod and attempted to make their own saucer, but failed because of a defect in the Soviet model. Later the Soviet constructors managed to remove the defect.

Specialists at the Saratov plant quoted by the paper complained about the indifference of the Russian authorities towards the “saucer” project.

In 1993, it was financed by the Security Council, State Committee of Problems of the North (the saucer was going to be used in the North of Russia), and forestry agencies. However, after 1999 state financing stopped.

In September 2003, officials from the U.S. Congress visited Saratov and the plant concluded a cooperation protocol with the company NAVAIR that deals in aviation equipment. The newspaper failed to mention if the deal was successful.

Like a fine wine connoisseur, I awaited the presentation of Peter Jennings’ “UFOs—Seeing is Believing” with great anticipation; in that vein I opened the bottle and “savored the aroma” of the cork; the content seemed full-bodied, and it’s bouquet pleasant to the senses; in taking my first sip, it appeared to be very palatable; although the finish was long, indicating good quality, the “aftertaste left much to be desired.”

The program opened with white print on a black screen and a sobering voice indicating that the UfO’s depicted in the upcoming animations were approved by the very witnesses who viewed them.

From there, following various photographs and animations of UFOs, the first individual to appear was that of Dr. Frank Drake, the founder of SETI; he staunchly proclaimed that “there is intelligent life out there!” This was accompanied by several declarations by various people, (including notable scientists) that “we are not alone” and the government knows it!

Although the pictures, animations and declarations were “old hat” as far as a “UFO documentary” is concerned, I still couldn’t help to be energized, knowing this was coming from such a prominent media personality as “Peter Jennings.”

The show seemed to be starting in a “gallop” and appeared to be meeting my optimistic hopes. At this point Jennings emerged before a “studio nightscape” with a silhouette of mountains behind him; he then set the tone for the show; he illuminated the fact that the majority of Americans today believe that “we are not alone in the universe.” On the other hand, he pointed out the exploratory work that NASA is doing in our solar system and “their desire” to find “any” proof of life outside of our own planet (without success). He summarized that what we we’re about to experience is not only the common belief that “we’re not alone” but the fact so many believe we are being visited by extraterrestrials!

As the Jennings commentary faded, more eyewitnesses to UFOs were shown, along with their respective declarations; there were voiceovers with shots of UFOs as well as the afore mentioned animations; this was becoming an “all to familiar UFO documentary.”

At one point for a little drama (I imagine) a man appeared in shadow, affirming to the camera, “they are here; there’s no doubt! Why they’re here we can only speculate.”

As that segment came to an end, Jennings voice could be heard stating statistics of various polls; he said, “eighty million Americans believe we are being visited by extraterrestrials, and forty million Americans have seen a UFO, or know someone who has. Many believe they have been “abducted” by aliens.”

The next segment started with NASA scientist Dr. Chris McKay walking in the Mohave Desert. (Dr. McKay received his Ph.D. in AstroGeophysics from the University of Colorado in 1982; he is currently a planetary scientist with the Space Science Division of NASA Ames Research Center; his work also includes the project on Titan).

The synopsis of McKay’s contribution, along with Jennings narration in my view, was that “there isn’t any evidence that can pass rigorous scientific methodologies to prove the UFOs are indeed ET craft.” The opposition to that mind-set in McKay’s words was downgraded to “UfO searchers.” The final words expressed in that segment were of Jennings saying, “The UFO Phenomenon, Only a Shadow of Mainstream Science.”

I kept telling myself that we weren’t to far into the show and that there was a lot more to come—the words, “fair and balanced” came to mind, along with it’s “new meaning.” Surely Jennings would follow McKay with a notable scientist to rebut what McKay alleged; someone of his caliber; knowing Stan (Friedman) was on the show, this seemed to be an appropriate place for him to appear. Or since McKay was in essence a voice for NASA, how about Dr. Richard Haines, former Chief of the Space Human Factors Office at NASA Ames Research Center now “science director for the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena.” (NARCAP)

As the segment “faded to black” with the echoes of “Shadow of Mainstream Science” playing over in my head, the next image coming to the screen is not of a familiar scientist “on site,” like McKay, or even in his or her office; no instead we fade into “Art Bell’s home (or as Jennings labeled it, a ‘compound’) “ at night, with Jennings repeating his now familiar term “believers” in regards to people who have experienced the UFO phenomenon, i.e., witnesses, or those involved in someway, Ufologists, etc.

Now don’t misunderstand me, I applaud Art Bell, and what he does etc., but I began to question the “motives of the producers”; obviously there were people on “both sides of the UFO fence” that were appearing on the show, but to have Art Bell follow a “NASA scientist” who erroneously states information about UFO evidence, with Jennings repeating the words, “believe, believers, compounds” etc., as well as painting a picture of Bell’s show being the main proponent of Ufology was reminiscent of “subliminal messaging.”

The Bell segment segued to the Phoenix Lights sighting of 1997 with more of the same, declarations of eye witnesses, film animation etc.; this time however, Jennings had amateur astronomer, “James McGaha” on as the UFO skeptic; perhaps the producers wanted to add a “comedic touch” to the piece, or maybe they just felt guilty by placing Bell behind McKay; in any event, any time McGaha opens his mouth about UFOs he seems to lend aid to his opposition.

Following the “Phoenix Lights” was the St. Clair county case of Illinois in January 2000 . . . again more declarations etc.; not to take away from the significance of these very important cases, it’s just for me, it’s all been said before; I was hoping for something more from ABC and Peter Jennings.

One disappointing instance in the St. Clair segment was the repeated use of the term “believer” by Dr. Mark Rodeghier, scientific director for CUFOS (Center for UFO Studies). It’s understandable for the ignorant to “meld UFOs and ET craft together,” ad nauseam, but Rodeghier knows better. To use the verb “believe,” in reference to UFOs is nonsensical—it would be the same as saying, “I believe in Niagra Falls!”

Jennings concluded the segment by announcing the exclusion of any “official investigation” of the afore mentioned events, and he said, “to understand why, we must go back to the ‘first’ UFO sighting.” The screen faded black and then emerged briefly showing the first cover of “Fate Magazine” which had an artist’s rendition of what Kenneth Arnold witnessed back in June of 1947—then the show went to commercial.

During the break, and in retrospect my feelings were very mixed at this point; I was only twenty minutes into the show; I felt disgust, and yet I had to hold on to the hope that it would improve—surely explaining the origins of what is known as “modern day Ufology” would be a step up from what’s been broadcast so far.

I was told that my UFO encyclopedia was a major resource, especially when the ABC News people were educating themselves on the subject and trying to figure out what was there and where to proceed. Through an assistant Jennings asked me for a personal, signed copy of the two volumes.

The show began as Life in the Universe, presumably with a SETI focus. UFOs were to be a part of it, though I suspect a relatively minor one, essentially depicted as silly pop-culture obsession as opposed to the science of SETI. As staff and crew members began to dig into ufology, they were taken aback to learn how much substance was there, and UFOs began to overwhelm the project, which finally became UFO-centered and got a different title.

My dealings with these people suggested they are serious professionals. I wouldn't have dealt with them if they weren't; I have come to abhor UFO presentations on television, which are generally moronic and exploitative, and consequently I don't do them anymore. After long discussion with the producer, I agreed to this one, and I have no regrets.

Overall, despite obvious shortcomings, I thought the show was pretty good, certainly the most pro-UFO primetime documentary by a major broadcast news operation that we are likely to see in our lifetimes. The limitations of time and the documentary format forced certain emphases (and, in the worst moments, distortion and misimpression). People who keep complaining about the neglect of this or that element fail to grasp the reality of the format. This was, after all, about 81 minutes, not eight hours. Moreover, to be watchable, a documentary requires dramatic momentum. If you want the whole story, there are some good books for that, but reading them is going to consume a whole lot more than 81 minutes of your time. Or, for that matter, eight hours of it.

From one point of view - pure good sense - the Roswell and abduction segments were a mistake. These are deeply complex subjects which, if dealt with at all, ought to have been subjects of their own documentaries. My suspicion is that they were there to give Jennings cover from potential criticism of the show's clearly pro-UFO slant. Jennings had to demonstrate that he was hostile toward more outlandish UFO claims in order to make his curiosity about the rest palatable and even credible. I think, of course, that this was unfortunate, resulting in segments that were, at best, highly simplistic and, at worse, unfair, inaccurate, and grossly misleading. To me the very worst was the depiction of Roswell investigators such as Friedman, Schmitt, and Randle as cynical money-grubbers, which was both false and cheap. Accuse them of being wrong, if you wish; but going beyond that to accuse them of being bad human beings is beyond the pale.

The SETI people were essentially set up. I can't imagine that they are very happy about their portrayal. The documentary makes clear that they know practically nothing about UFOs except that they don't like them - which was the show's larger point about science and government's response generally. Frank Drake appeared to be going out of his way to validate his critics' longstanding contention that his is essentially a mystical, religious quest. He talked like a zealot about how a message from space would change the world, just like some primitive awaiting word from the sky gods. Jill Tarter looked ridiculous when she admitted (boasted, even) that - as an astronomer yet - she failed to recognize what any Joe Doakes has no trouble identifying instantly: the moon partially hidden by clouds. Even more amusingly, this came in the context of smug assertions by her and her colleagues that anecdotal testimony is worthless - except, I guess, if it's anecdotal testimony by a clueless UFO disbeliever. At the end of the show, physicist Michio Kaku gets the last word, rejecting the SETI people's wishful and silly myth that ETs can't be visiting because they can't get here.

I don't blame Stan Friedman and Budd Hopkins for being upset about their treatment on the show. The Roswell and abduction segments are indefensible.

They aren't, however, the end of the story. I don't know what, if any, long-term effects will fall out from the show's airing, but if there are, they are more likely to be positive than negative.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

During the past year Jenning's producers interviewed me a number of times, and because I sensed what they had in mind, I made, as a preemptive strike, a number of careful, highly specific observations about the UFO abduction phenomenon. All of these crucial points - recorded by ABC on videotape - were designed to underline the physical reality of UFO abductions and to demonstrate the implausibility of current skeptical explanations.

To its shame, ABC suppressed _all_ of these observations.

I knew, of course, that the skeptics' favorite explanation du jour is impossibly simple: abduction reports, they believe, are all due to misperceived "sleep paralysis." Ranking as a distant second is another erroneous belief: abduction reports, they say, "ONLY emerge under hypnosis," and since hypnosis is "totally unreliable", all abduction reports must be discarded. In the light of these tediously familiar errors and misstatements, I made certain in my taped interviews to explain the following:

* In the first two decades of our research, _all_ of the central abduction cases involved people who were outside their houses when they were taken _none_ were lying paralyzed in their bedrooms.They were driving cars, walking, fishing, hunting and even, in one famous case, driving a tractor on a farm. "Sleep paralysis" as a blanket explanation of UFO abductions is therefore, ipso facto, a ludicrous non-starter. Nevertheless _all_ of my insistent statements on this point were systematically eliminated by the producers.

* Second, I indicated that there are many abuction reports involving two, three, six or more people who were taken simultaneously and whose highly detailed recollections are virtually identical. This fact alone eliminates not only "sleep paralysis" but "fantasy-proneness" or any other idiosyncratic psychological aberrations as riggering causes. My descriptions of these many cases of multiple abductions were likewise ompletely suppressed by the producers.

* Third, I showed the interviewers many photos of, again, virtually identical scoop marks, consistent straight-line scars and ground landing traces at abduction sites, and other physical sequelae. _All_ of these vivid photographic examples of physical evidence were suppressed by the producers.

* Fourth, I was not alone in making these points. My colleague Dr. David Jacobs was asked by ABC to carry out a hypnotic regression for the camera, but since the woman he chose had been abducted in the daytime while driving a car, the case did not fit ABC's "sleep paralysis" agenda and was thus not only suppressed, but Dr. Jacobs' many hours of taped interviews were also scrapped.

* Fifth, I made it very clear that perhaps 30% of all the abduction reports collected by researchers are recalled _without_ the aid of hypnosis, a fact which renders the issue of hypnosis moot. This point was also suppressed by the producers whose only goal, it appeared, was to eliminate any data that contradicted their transparently false debunking hypotheses.

Despite my having presented - and reiterated - the points above, the producers chose to trot out on camera two debunking scientists (whose experiments with a mere handful of subjects have yet to be taken seriously by the psychological community) to buttress the untenable "sleep paralysis" theory, the false "no physical evidence" claim, and the demonstrably untrue "its all hypnosis" assertion. The smug presentations of these two would-be experts were accompanied by the producers' lurid "reenactments" of "sleep paralysis" phenomena, complete with flashing lights and spooky music. The taped testimony of a serious mental health professional like Dr. John Mack was likewise suppressed, along with my statement that over the years eight psychiatrists and numerous other mental health professionals had come to me about their own UFO abductions. The producers' obvious goal was to conceal the fact that within the mental health community there are many professionals who look with amusement on the "sleep paralysis" theory, and who accept the physical reality of UFO abductions.

So what can one say about such a deliberately dishonest presentation as Peter Jenning's "Seeing is Believing" take on abductions? Perhaps one can only shrug and warn, yet again, that the incurious members of the press and the many blinkered, conservative scientists had better collectively pull their heads up out of the sand and join us in our work. Whatever one's personal attitude toward the UFO abduction phenomenon, science insists that an extraordinary phenomenon demands an extraordinary investigation. What ABC served up on Thursday night was, instead, an extraordinary whitewash of the abduction phenomenon, and a brutal suppression of the evidence for what may well be the most portentous event in human history.

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Today, if you ask the Air Force about UFOs, it will cite its own 22-year study called Project Blue Book, which said there is no evidence that they are extraterrestrial vehicles and there is no evidence that they represent technology beyond our own.

Blue Book, based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, investigated hundreds of UFO reports yearly throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

But the truth is Blue Book never became a serious, full-scale, scientific inquiry. The main purpose of the Air Force's UFO office was public relations, says Robert Goldberg, author of "Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America."

"That mission was denounce the UFOs, dismiss the UFOs, debunk the UFOs and anybody who believes in them — just come up with answers and get this UFO thing out of the newspapers," he told ABC News.

Blue Book was far from a massive institute with a staff of white-coated lab technicians, said UFO researcher Mark Rodeghier. "There was a guy at a desk and a secretary and a private or someone there typing stuff. It was a very, very small project," he said.

Explaining It Away

Blue Book may have done some investigating, but it was overwhelmed by the volume of reports that were coming in.

Col. Robert Friend, the project's director from 1958 to 1963, told ABC News: "We wanted to explain as many sightings as possible, but we recognized that the amount of resources that would have been necessary in order to do this would have been far beyond those that we were ready to commit at the time."

He also recognized Project Blue Book's real purpose: "What they wanted to try to do was, I think, to re-educate the public regarding UFOs, to take away the aura of mystery."

And the best way to keep UFOs out of the newspapers — and therefore, out of the public mind — was to say repeatedly that they were nothing more than weather balloons or rare atmospheric conditions, like a star on the horizon.

Insistent Scientist

The man most often responsible for making these explanations was Blue Book's one civilian scientist, Ohio State University astronomer J. Allen Hynek. Between 1948 and 1969, he was the lead investigator on thousands of cases.

In interviews from that time, he insisted "there is no proof that I would consider valid scientific proof that we have been visited by spaceships."

Michael Swords, a professor of natural science at Western Michigan University and UFO researcher says Hynek's job "was to stretch his imagination to try to find explanations for every possible case he could, even if he knew it didn't make any sense."

In a 1965 interview with one witness, Hynek argued with a woman who said she saw a UFO, insisting it was actually a meteor.

She asked, "Don't you think it would be kind of unusual for a meteor to just fall across the road and hover over there a minute and then drop to the ground?"

Hynek replied: "The coming over wouldn't be bad. It's the hovering that would bother me."

Seeing Stars

Project Blue Book even dismissed a sighting by experienced military personnel on high alert during the middle of the Cold War.

On the night of Oct. 24, 1968, Mike O'Connor was dispatched to make a repair at a missile site at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota.

En route, he says he saw a bright light "lift off the ground, and parallel us down the road, until we came to the missile site." When he got out of the truck, the light "just kind of hovered there," he said.

The Minot control tower diverted a B-52 to investigate. The navigator on the B-52, Capt. Patrick McCaslin, remembers what he saw on the radar screen: "This thing was climbing out with us and maintaining the same heading we were. That was unusual. But what really watered my eyes [was] when this thing backed away and allowed us to turn inside of it."

Capt. Brad Runyon, the B-52's co-pilot, says he remembers the "overall object was a minimum of 200 feet in diameter and it was hundreds of feet long."

"It had a metallic cylinder attached to another section that was shaped like a crescent moon. I felt that this crescent moon part was probably the command center. I tried to look inside the thing, but all I could see was a yellow glow."

He says at that point he was fairly sure it was an alien spaceship, and when the crew members returned to base, they reported their sighting.

According to Blue Book's investigation, the crew of the B-52 and 16 witnesses on the ground said they saw a UFO that night. In its final report, Blue Book concluded that they were all probably just seeing stars.

The Air Force finally got out of the business of trying to explain UFOs in 1969 and closed down Project Blue Book after an independent commission concluded that UFOs were of no scientific interest.

But there was one loud, dissenting voice: Blue Book's once-skeptical chief scientist, Allen Hynek. After more than 20 years and more than 12,000 investigations, Hynek had become a believer.

In an interview at the time, he recalled how embarrassing it had been to take UFO accounts from military pilots during Blue Book because the Air Force had trained those men.

"They could say civilian pilots might've been untrustworthy, but they could hardly say that of their own military pilots. And we got case after case after case from military pilots, which never hit the press," he said.

Hynek spent the rest of his life investigating sightings and calling for a serious scientific inquiry into the UFO phenomenon. Most of his fellow scientists rejected his opinions.

In 1973, he founded the Center for UFO Studies in Chicago in an effort to conduct more research into alleged sightings. He died in 1986.

Friday, February 25, 2005

I'm not a Ufologist, per se, but merely a Fortean researcher and writer. So I watched _the_ program, anyway, out of curiosity and to see how ABC News dealt with this subject. My first reactions: Very well-done. High production values, not sensationalized, and quite intelligent.

Peter Jennings' UFO special created a decent overview of the ufological phenomena, I thought, for the general public. First a few quick grabber moments with recent cases of triangles over Phoenix and southern Illinois, with Coast to Coast AM's Art Bell (but why no credit to George Noory?). Then some good historical material, with great down-to-earth commentary by Jerome Clark and others. Pilots' sightings, J. Allen Hynek, and more pro-UFO material filled the first hour.

When hour two opened, I thought the good cop-bad cop split was going to occur. And indeed, for a time, it was nothing but skepticism, from SETI people and astronomers. Then the "myth" of Roswell was retold, with lots of funny viuals and a bit of media bias in the voice-overs. Stan Friedman and Karl Pflock were given good moments to detail their thoughts. This was followed by a segment delivered, with a careful introduction from Jenning, on abductees and Bud Hopkins, who was portrayed as the "first one out of the gate" on this subject. Unmentioned, let's hope Betty and Barney Hill and John Fuller, please, are resting in peace. Whitley Strieber's book cover was shown as one of those tomes coming after Hopkins. I'm outside the feuds of the field, but I could feel the sparks flying already. And then the whole thing ended with some thoughtful insights on space travel from physicist Michio Kaku.

All in all, an excellent addition to the documentary attempts to address the question of UFOs.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

I’ve always been curious why some military, and particularly some civilian witnesses to the 1947 Roswell Incident were threatened about talking about their experiences. After all, if it was just a weather balloon, or a Mogul balloon, or anthropomorphic crash test dummies that were involved in the Roswell Incident, why would it be necessary to threaten individuals about discussing it? Discussions about threats from witnesses goes back to the 1970’s when the research on Roswell began. I’m continuing to get statements today from children of individuals that were at the Roswell Army Airfield in 1947 as civilian employees, about threats their parents received, and how they handled those threats. As a researcher of the Roswell Incident, the threats are one of the things that have kept me interested in the Incident, and have convinced me there was more to the Roswell Incident than what we’ve been told.

I have found that the threats varied from individual to individual too, with some of them being direct and to the point, while others were less personal, but still threats. It appears that the more you knew the more intense were the threats.

Some of threats that we know about include:

Maj. Jesse Marcel, the 509th Bomb Wing Intelligence Officer, who after returning from General Ramey’s office told his wife and son, Jesse Jr., “They were not to speak about what they had seen, when he stopped at the house on the way back to the base from the debris field a few nights earlier.”

Sheriff George Wilcox’s granddaughter in an interview done in 1991 stated that, “When the incident happened, the military police came to the jailhouse and told her grandparents (George and his wife Inez), that if they ever talked about it, not only would they be killed, but the entire family would be killed.” Sheriff Wilcox never ran for Sheriff again, although his wife did and was defeated.

After Frank Joyce of the KGFL radio station in Roswell, send Public Information Officer Walter Hauts’ press release to the United Press bureau, he received a call from a gentleman that identified himself as an officer at the Pentagon. Joyce stated that, “This man said some very bad things about what would happen to me…he was really pretty nasty.” KGFL radio was notified that if they ever broadcast an interview that they had done with “Mack” Brazel, their FCC (Federal Communication Commission) license would be in jeopardy.

Ranch foreman, “Mack” Brazel, who discovered the debris on the Foster ranch where he was the foreman, was taken into custody at the Roswell Army Airfield base for several days after coming to the Sheriff’s office with pieces of the debris. According to Mack Brazel’s son Bill Jr., “the military had asked his Dad to take an oath never to talk about it, and he went to his grave never telling anyone anything after being interrogated.” Changing his story at the radio station after being interrogated and being able to open a meat locker in Alamogordo, New Mexico a short time later on a ranch foreman’s salary in 1947, also raises speculation as to what all was involved in his interrogation along with the threats.

Frankie Rowe has been interviewed and written about in books about her Dad, Dan Dwyer’s involvement as a city of Roswell Firefighter in 1947. Miss Rowe recalled that military personnel came by their house and she was told, “If she talked about this again, they could be taken out in the desert, and no one would ever find them again.”

Joseph Montoya was the Lt. Governor of New Mexico in 1947 and apparently viewed both the crashed craft debris and bodies in the hangar at the base. When Ruben Anaya asked Montoya about the events he had just experienced at the hangar, he was told to forget it. “It’s too dangerous”, Montoya said. “The FBI will do away with you.”

Some of the military personnel involved that were sworn to secrecy according to interviews they have done over the years included “Pappy” Henderson, one of the top pilots with the 509th Bomb Wing; Edwin Easley, provost marshal for the 509th; Sheridan Cavitt and Bill Ricket, Counter Intelligence Officers.

Probably one of the most publicized threats made against a civilian were those made to Glenn Dennis, the mortician at Ballard Funeral Home. Glenn told Stanton Friedman in an interview in 1989 that, “Upon arriving at the base medical facility with an injured airman, he was met inside the infirmary by an MP (Military Policeman), who wanted to know who Glenn was, where he was from and what business he had there?” Glenn then met a nurse he knew, who asked him, “how did you get in here” and she told him, “My God, you’re going to get killed.” Shortly after that a big red-headed Captain asked the MPs what Glenn was doing there and ordered them to remove him from the building which they did, following him back to the funeral home. Glenn told researchers, Schmitt and Randle that when the Captain threatened him; he replied to the Captain “he could go to hell because he was a civilian”. The Captain responded by saying,”Don’t kid yourself young man, somebody will be picking your bones out of the sand.”

Most of the above accounts of being threatened most likely are accurate accounts, as the witnesses making the statements had no reason to embellish their experience. As for the military and certain civilians, there is no doubt that many were sworn to secrecy at the time of the incident, and many kept that oath until they went to the grave. In a few cases, because individuals have not been found to substantiate the experiences as told by the witnesses, we must continue to search for information on those individuals. The threats however speak for themselves, that something of extreme importance took place in Roswell in 1947 that apparently had nothing to do with balloons or crash test dummies.

Recently I’ve been fortunate enough to receive information about other civilian personnel that were at Roswell Army Airfield in 1947, and I have questioned the siblings of those individuals, about the threats they received and how they handled them.

One such case involved a woman who worked at the base in 1947, as the only civilian in the communication department, in conjunction with Mountain States Bell Telephone Company. I located her son in Albuquerque, New Mexico in December 2004, and asked him if she had told the family anything before passing away in 1997, here in Roswell. His reply was, “As a matter of fact no---I don’t know what pressure they used, but they told her not to talk about it to anyone---and she DID NOT, until the day she died.” I responded, “so she was told not to talk about it”, and he said, “She was definitely.” She told us, “she couldn’t tell us about anything---she was instructed not to.”

Another situation involved a man who was the city manager of Roswell from 1946-1964, a WW II veteran with a high security clearance, who retired from the National Guard as a Major General. His son still lives here in Roswell and recently told me, “His Dad and then base commander Col. Blanchard were friends.” He had told the son’s mother and grandmother, “he had seen something he could not talk about” and as in other cases did not, until his death in 1982.

There were many more threats that I don’t have room to list here, but this list that I’ve shared with you provides a wide diversity of the type threats both military and civilians received, due to their involvement in the 1947 Roswell Incident, and my question remains --- Why?

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

—Los Angeles, March 9 (AP)An expert on chemicals and explosives told reporters yesterday he had seen the wreckage of an ultra streamlined flying saucer on a Mexico City mountainside, and that top U.S. officials have viewed it.

But there was no confirmation of the account, related by Ray L. Dimmick sales manger of of the Apache Powder Co., and the Air Force in Washington said it had heard nothing about it.

Say Strip of Metal

Dimmick later told newsmen he had seen only a strip of metal which he was told came from the space ship.

The remainder of his information Dimmick said, came from two businessmen in Mexico City, one an American, the other a Chilean. Dimmick declined to name them, said he would divulge that information “if requested by the proper authorities.”

Part of the information he said, was that a man 23 inched tall, the pilot of the plane, died in the crash and that his body had been embalmed for scientific study.

It was an exquisite piece of machinery, Dimmick told the first interviewers. He then described it in detail, saying it was 48 feet in diameter, built of a metal resembling aluminum, but much harder, and was powered by two motors.

He was then taken to the scene of the crash by associates and that the wreckage was roped off. The crash occurred three months ago he said.

Dimmick said later that the piece of metal he saw was actually eight feet long, 8 inches wide, and three-quarters of an inch thick.

Others Sighted

Reminded that the Air Force announced last December it was dropping it’s investigation of Flying Saucers because of preponderance of evidence that they do not exist, Dimmick said:

“I’m big enough to take the consequences of what I said and stand my ground.”

He said he has reports of that similar objects landed in various parts of North America in the last year, “but governments have clamped veils of secrecy about their investigations.”

After a month delay due to an illness incurred by Seth Shostak, the debate between he and Stanton Friedman took place on the "Coast To Coast" radio show hosted by George Noory in the wee hours Wednesday, July 21st of last year.

The subject of course was UFOs; more accurately the idea that some UFOs are indeed ET spacecraft, as proposed by Stan Friedman; taking the opposing position was SETI Astronomer Seth Shostak. The latter holds a BA in physics from Princeton and a PhD in astronomy from Caltech. Stanton Friedman, whom I like to call, "The Godfather of modern day Ufology," received his BS and MS degrees in physics from the University of Chicago in 1955 and 1956. He was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist before starting his long career in researching/investigating the UFO phenomenon.

As the show started, George Noory, it's host, and in this instance the debate's moderator, went through all the usual pleasantries in introducing his distinguished guests; he laid out the ground rules for the debate, stating that it would be an "informal session" starting with each one's view of the subject, followed by "Q&A" from Noory, then dialogue directly between the two, and finally ending with questions from callers.

Friedman was the first to come out swinging, emphatically stating that:

1. "SOME" UFOs are alien spacecraft.

2. There exists a "Cosmic Watergate," i.e., that some few people in various governments have been aware of this fact since July, 1947 because of the crash of two alien spacecraft and the recovery of dead bodies in the state of New Mexico.

3. None of the arguments made against the first two points stand up to careful scrutiny.

4. This is the biggest story of the millennium, in that, “we are being visited by aliens, and the government is and has been covering it up since at least 1947.”

From there Friedman kept jabbing at his opponent making a comparison with Ufology and the stance he feels SETI holds on the subject; he stated that the SETI program is based on a number of assumptions that he feels "have no basis in fact" i.e., there's nobody coming here; that radio is the ultimate means of communication; that if aliens were coming here they [SETI] would know about it; that there is no colonization, no migration; that we need to talk about great distances before there's anybody out there; that we can't possibly be a threat to anybody; there's no national security aspect to the notion of alien visitation.

Staying on the offensive and continuing to jab his opponent with lightening speed, Friedman went on to note the major differences with Ufology and SETI by saying, "they [SETI] ignore the UFO data, we Ufologists look at the SETI data and say, 'hey where's your evidence?' They want us to provide a "body," we want them to provide "any kind of evidence" that there's anybody out there sending signals!" Friedman further pointed out that there are stars a billion years older then our sun, and the possibility exists that there are civilizations as old, and that the notion that they would be at our same level of technology is "silly."

When the bell rang for round two, although Shostak was ready to spar with Friedman he wasn't initially aggressive. He admitted that he was in agreement with Stan in the sense that "there is in fact 'intelligent life' in the universe," [other then our own] but took issue with Friedman's point of view that "they're here now!" He intimated that the evidence for "that idea" was weak and couldn't be verified. He further stated that if SETI finds evidence of extraterrestrial life it would be able to be verified and leave "no doubt" about the fact.

Noory interjected the idea that some would disagree with their mindset and that we are unique in the universe. Friedman acknowledged the matter of fact that there exist people who think "the human race is indeed alone in the universe." He likened them to "extremists" he has encountered in giving his lectures who say, "don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up." On the other end of the spectrum he stated that there are those who believe that "aliens are here to save them."

Noory cut in and recollected his first meeting with Friedman back in 1971 and asked Stan if the "Roswell Incident" was his motivating factor for initiating his UFO research. Friedman set the record straight, and stated that his involvement with Roswell research didn't surface until 1978. [Stan Friedman was the first civilian researcher to bring the "Roswell Incident" to public light.]

Noory posed a similar question to Shostak in asking him when he decided to get involved with SETI. [The Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence.] Shostak recalled his childhood and early interest in the idea of extraterrestrial life. He went on to state that while being a graduate student and using radio telescopes to study galaxies, he had read a book authored by the well known astronomer, Carl Sagan and I. S. Shklovskii entitled, "Intelligent Life in The Universe"; that book was his inspiration about using the radio telescope for possibly communicating with alien life. By 1990 he had moved to the Bay Area and joined SETI.

At this point Noory reminded his listening audience to “fax blast” (vote by fax machine) and or computer in the last hour to indicate whom they felt won the debate. He said he would announce the winner at the end of the show.

From here, Noory suggested dialogue between the two contenders, to start it off he (Noory) posed this question to Shostak; he asked, “Why he couldn’t believe [Seth] we aren’t being visited by the very same people he is listening for?” Seth didn’t waste anytime and came out swinging! He admitted that he “could” believe it, giving an example of ET visiting earth eons ago, taking samples etc., but also acknowledged how hard it would be to prove that. He then goes for a roundhouse punch saying that if ET had or is visiting in current times there must be “compelling evidence” to prove that. He then states that he just doesn’t believe that the evidence is sufficient. Staying in that theme, he references Museums, saying that evidence would certainly be in Science Museums if there were any. He said it “should be irrefutable.”

Stan countered with some quick jabs stating it was/is irrefutable! There was a brief exchange of pro and con, with Stan finishing by agreeing with Shostak that the evidence is lacking with SETI and Museums, mentioning the “laughter curtain,” i.e., the fear of ridicule of scientists getting involved with research concerning Ufology. Shostak was quick to interject his disagreement with that mindset, saying that this is the most interesting thing that could be discovered and that he [Seth] didn’t “buy that.” Stan reiterated the number of scientist he’s spoken to over the years that have told him not to use their names, and to keep their comments confidential. He further used as examples the omission of any scientific studies in the books of key “SETI folk, including Shostak, as well as Frank Drake and Carl Sagan. He said based on their books, there wasn’t any indication that any of them looked at the “large scale scientific research” involving Ufology, giving “Project Blue Book’s” Special Report 14 done by “Battelle Memorial Institute” as an example.

After the break, Noory pointed out that both Shostak and Friedman agree that there is ET life in the universe, the difference being whether they’re here or not. Stan didn’t waste anytime and went on the offensive. He quickly pointed out that in Seth’s latest book he asked the question, “how come they haven’t landed, and why aren’t they seen on radar?” Stan references Ted Phillip’s research of the last 35 years of over “5000 landing trace cases” from 75 countries, highlighting the fact that these “aren’t crop circles.” He then goes on to cite “multiple-witness/radar visual sightings and the work of Dr. James McDonald, former Professor and Senior Physicist, Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona. He emphasizes the “importance and quality” of that “type of evidence” as well as the omission of said evidence in Seth’s book and or discussions concerning Ufology. He says [Stan] Seth acts as if it doesn’t exist. He illustrates that the evidence (“multiple-witness/radar visual sightings) indicates manufactured objects clearing exhibiting maneuvers that “man” can’t duplicate, therefore predicating the fact that they were/are made somewhere else! Like Ali did in the past, Stan then taunted his opponent, by saying, “if we’re going to say there is no evidence, then we have to include the exception of what ‘we haven’t looked at.’”

Around 15:00 hours Walter Jara and his cousin Luis Aguilar saw a UFO for over a minute over Cerro Hornopiren. According to Jara's account, the UFO flew over the summit before his startled eyes, and a few seconds later, he gathered his wits and managed to take a digital photo of the object.

Jara said that at the moment of the photograph he was not aware of the flying objects that flew over the perimeter vertically. He was surprised a few minutes later. At first, he thought that it could have been a spot on the camera lens.

But after keeping the UFO in sight for 60 seconds, his perception and that of his cousin were changed.

According to his story, the flying saucers were not visible in plain sight. However, when he zoomed the camera lens, he was able to see them clearly. It was a moment of wonder and amazement, said Jara. "The day was clear and cloudless. The object oscillated vertically in the sky. I don't think it was a bird because they move differently."

He added that the UFO was grey in color and oval-shaped.

Jara's friend Fernando Garces said that his family lives in Hornopiren and has never seen any object with the characteristics mentioned by Walter Jara. The Meterology Office attached to Puerto Montt's Tepual Airport discarded the possibility that weather balloons could be involved, since these are launched at 8:00 and fly over the area for a maximum time of 2 hours. According to weather official Gastón Muñoz, by eleven o'clock the balloons have burst.

Jennings, whose new two-hour special (8 p.m. Thursday, WRTV ) tackles the subject of UFOs, admits he and his production team began the project with doubts and a dose of curiosity.

"We have a lot of skeptics -- I am very skeptical -- but we seriously investigated something a lot of people are serious about," he said. "And when we come to the end, this is wonderfully interesting.

"More than 80 million Americans believe intelligent beings from somewhere else have come here," he said. "Forty million believe they have seen UFOs, so this is of deep interest to people."

Produced for ABC News by Jennings's production company, the program examines the UFO phenomenon from an early milestone: a 1947 sighting by a man named Kenneth Arnold.

Segments include visits to the Center for UFO Studies outside Chicago to a radio talk show on "UFOlogy." That show's host, Art Bell, cites among his 18 million weekly listeners "the most informed UFOlogists, the best scientists and some of the craziest people you'll ever meet."

Spanning the range of believers and skeptics, sightings and science, the show includes interviews "with people in so many traditional, trusted walks of life -- cops, pilots, detectives, scientists, historians," Jennings said. "All with their own views, but all who have taken this seriously."

Some of those interviewed describe what they have seen in the sky, from mysterious lights to giant hovering triangular objects.

In 1997, hundreds of people reported seeing a large craft move slowly over Phoenix. In 2000, police officers from five different departments spotted a strange object in St. Clair County, Ill. The police-radio relays describe the low-flying, brightly lit object being tracked.

With no videotape of the sightings, Jennings' program uses sophisticated animation to illustrate each incident. Photographs were taken of the locations, duplicating weather conditions and time of day, then witnesses' descriptions were used to depict the event.

"In every piece of animation, we talked to the eyewitnesses, built the animation according to what they said, then went back to show them," Jennings said. "And they'd respond, 'No, it was bigger,' or, 'The nose was redder.' So ultimately what we have is animation that accurately reflects what you hear the eyewitnesses describe."

Executive producer Tom Yellin said the UFO field is "a risky thing to report since it doesn't go with the conventional wisdom that this stuff is kind of silly."

Like Jennings, Yellin initially had reservations about devoting a program to UFOs. "I thought it was all a bunch of baloney. Even though it has public appeal, you don't want to do something that subjects you to ridicule just to get a rating."

But Yellin discovered "a tremendous amount of information that deserves further examination.

"The U.S. government and every government has a policy of knocking (UFO reports) down, and that is very different from covering it up," he said. "The field has been abandoned to kooks and amateurs, and we felt it was worth looking at more closely."

Friday, February 18, 2005

There are a multitude of not only Ufologists, but also scientists, and on the other side, debunkers, pelicanists etc., who seem to have an “inside track” on the psychology of ET. In listening to some, one would think that they’ve had intimate encounters with our visitors, and or have studied their societies for years. (If in fact “they” have societies at all).

Many suggest their motives, and why things happen or don’t; e.g., in regards to Roswell, some have stated that, “a crash of an ET craft” isn’t possible because ET would be too far advanced in their respective technologies for that to happen.

Still others claim that ET is just as fallible as we humans, regardless of their superiority over us. Scientists of course say ET can’t be here, because “we can’t get there.”

Skeptics have often echoed the sentiments that if UFOs were indeed alien spacecraft, then they would obviously make contact with the governments of the earth. Conspiracists theorize they indeed already have, and work in conjunction with a macabre faction of the powers-that-be.

Theologians, who seem to know what the “supreme ET” of all is thinking, say that “we are alone.”

Some very esteemed Ufologists have suggested that ET has been visiting the planet since the first detonation of the “A-bomb”; that much like Star Trek” a “Federation of Planets” is concerned, much akin “to children playing with a gun.”

Within these various dogmas lies a common thesis; they are all based from “human logic”; therefore, the foundation to which they (said dogmas) are predicated is non-existent! I submit that trying to deduce “alien intentions/ideologies” with “human explication” to quote (speaking of Star Trek) one of my favorite extraterrestrials “is not logical!”

Barring abductions, there isn’t enough data to surmise any “alien ideology” of any sort; to suggest otherwise is nonsensical. In order to postulate a theorem about an extraterrestrial life form at the very least, “some” facts are obligatory; for example, are they carbon based? Do they require sustenance? Are they societal? Do they possess emotions, etc?

Without further data there is only speculation; that speculation is futile, unless ET is analogous to the human species. Naturally that notion can’t be ruled out either, given the lack of information.

Ultimately, in order to validate the various licenses taken by so many, the preface must be, “if ET is akin to the human species, then I believe . . .” as it is currently impossible to presume “alien” intent by human explication.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Back in July a colleague of yours, Seth Shostak debated Stanton Friedman on the idea that some UFOs are indeed ET spacecraft; Friedman took the "pro position" and Shostak of course opposed the notion.

One thing the two men agreed upon was that they both adhered to the concept of “intelligent life existing in the universe.” As the debate progressed Shostak took issue with the evidence that Ufologists in general present for their theorem—this brings me to my question:

It would seem that most of the ideologies presented today from “mainstream Astronomers” e.g., extra-solar planets, rogue planets, black holes etc., are based on “circumstantial evidence”; for example, the idea of “extra-solar planets” is deduced by a “star’s wobble”; my observation, as well as the question, is why the guidelines for Astronomers in regards to evidence is acceptable in “their field” but they won’t apply the same rules to Ufology.

I would certainly appreciate your thoughts on the “evidence or data methodologies” used in Astronomy, and why said methodologies don’t seem to be adequate for Ufology.

Thank You,Respectfully,Frank Warren

He kindly responded:

Hi:

Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query.

However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same.In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.

All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on—the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.

Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.

When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.

Frank Drake

I replied:

FW: Dear Mr. Drake, Thank you for you for your expeditious reply to my inquiry.

FD: Hi:

Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query. Actually I was looking forward to a "detailed explanation." However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.

FW: Allow me to play devil's advocate based on your affirmation of equality in regards to evidentiary protocol of Astronomy and Ufology.

FD: All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on—the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.

FW: To be clear, (from a layman's [me] point of view) since we have "empirical evidence" of our own sun's orbit presumably being affected by the gravity (pull) of Jupiter (and other large planets in our own solar system), and the orbit (wobble) seems to be directly proportional to the mass of said planet; we therefore can presume the "same effect" takes place in other solar systems, with their stars, and although we cannot see the planets, we can observe the wobble, via "Doppler Shift" etc. Since the "wobble" is directly proportional to the "mass of a planet" (at least it appears to be here, in our solar system) we can determine the mass of said planet by mathematical equation.

In addition to the wobble of a distant star, going on the assumption that it is indeed a planet's gravity causing the wobble, one could assume that if said planet were to cross between the earth and the star being observed, the light from the star would be measurably diminished.

You finally, state, that "there is no doubt here." I take that to mean that this is going "beyond theory" and is accepted as fact . . . interesting.

First I'd like to state that the "circumstantial (indirect) evidence" put on the table for "extra-solar planets" is more then enough "for me," for validation of their existence; however, playing "Devil's Advocate":

1). Can we state emphatically that there aren't "other forces" in the universe that aren't currently known that would "mimic the pull" caused by gravity of a "Jupiter sized planet?" Could another "space borne" object of the same mass cause the wobble?

2). Are there other actions that could affect "Doppler Shift," or any other form of detection in the same manner that "star wobble" does, e.g., pulsations etc.?

3). Given the fact that the most detection methods of "extra-solar planets" is relatively new, (with technology expanding by leaps and bounds) and not without controversy, i.e., ("Barnard's Star and possible planetary bodies, David Gray's disputation of 51 Peg,") isn't possible that either "new information" could surface, or the interpretation of the data may change, and affect the current conclusions?

IMHO if the answers to any of the afore mentioned questions is "unknown" or "it's possible," then that would leave "some" doubt, albeit little to the "absolute existence" of extra-solar planets based on the current methodologies used for their reality; that said, what we're left with is strong "circumstantial evidence" in support of the "theory" of extra-solar planets."

FD: Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.

FW: Agreed.

FD: When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.

FW: Here I have to respectfully disagree; you stated that the criterion for the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for:

1). Well-observed, calibrated data.

2). Verification by repeat observations or experiments.

3). Multiple observers.

First let me clarify some points: The bulk of UFO reports over the last 60 years after thorough investigation, can be attributed to more conventional explanations, e.g., known aircraft, celestial bodies etc.; however, the ones addressed here are the smaller percentage that cannot be explained in a conventional manner.

The ones I speak of are of an "unknown airborne craft" that exhibit characteristics beyond man-made technologies. It is true, that this phenomena can't for the most part be repeated "on demand" it is a "transient uncontrollable unpredictable event"; however, it certainly does repeat, and observations are to numerous to count. It of course isn't the same as observing a "fixed celestial body" and doesn't have the same obvious advantages for scientific research. It does/has re-occurred, often, and can/has been recorded in a number of ways to allow for scientific investigation; for example:

1). In most cases involving a "craft" there is "direct evidence," i.e., "eye witnesses.

2). The craft "occupies space."

3). It moves as time passes.

4). It emits "thermal effects."

5). It exhibits light emission and absorption.

6). It effects the atmosphere.

7). It can be photographed.

8). It has left residual "after-effects," i.e., forensic evidence etc.

9). It has caused electric, magnetic and gravitational disorders.

10). It has been tracked by radar

The list goes on . . .

You've stated that none (UFOs) have been "definitively recorded." This is inaccurate. UFOs, in this instance "unknown craft" have been photographed, video taped, tracked by radar, and those readings recorded. In addition, they have been pursued by "our aircraft," and those of other countries.

Finally, "all" the criterion you cite for evidence have been met for Ufology with one more addition, "eye witnesses." One only need to look at the data. This is not to say that all the questions have been answered; in fact, it evokes this one—"why doesn't Ufology receive that attention it deserves from mainstream science?"

You quoted one of Carl Sagan's often used statements; I might add that he also said, "In physics, as in much of all science, there are no permanent truths; there is a set of approximations, getting closer and closer, and people must always be ready to revise what has been in the past thought to be the absolute gospel truth."

But back to the quote you mention, "grand claims require grand evidence." Is what Ufologists suggest so grand, so far out? By your own device, ("Drake's Equation") you suggest the number of planets in our galaxy with intelligent, technological civilizations. Is it so far out that one of these civilizations is far more advanced then we, and have mastered space travel; or travel in ways beyond our comprehension. Using our own technological advancement as a baseline we have progressed in a few generations to what only our ancestors could describe as "magic" given some examples; think what might and most assuredly would happen in thousands of years, or more! I've always found it odd that intelligent people admit to advance ETI, yet believe that when it comes to traveling to earth--they (ET) "played hooky" from that class!

Omitting the evidence, the data, for a moment (regarding Ufology) and agreeing on the common point(s) that there is "abundant intelligent life in the universe," the question is not "are they here," but "why wouldn't they be?

I would like to hear your thoughts on what I've presented, as well as my last question if you would be so kind.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

By 1952 the Air Force was in “full debunking mode,” and that summer would offer a grandiose example of how far the Air Force would go to explain away the Flying Saucer (UFO) Phenomenon.

Common folk (those “mildly” knowledgeable about UFOs) have often said, “If they are from another planet, why don’t they just land on the Whitehouse lawn?” Ironically, in July of 1952 they came very close to doing just that!

The headline of the Washington Post’s Final Edition of July 28th, 1952 declared, “’Saucer’ Out Ran Jet, Pilot Reveals.” The article went on to reveal a “secret military investigation” of what were described as “glowing aerial objects“ that were appearing on radar screens in the Washington area for the second consecutive week. Pilots sent up by the ADC (Air Defense Command) reported that they were unable to overtake the UFOs that were near Andrews Air Force Base.

The Air Force’s official response was that they were investigating the incidents and that it was classified as “secret.” They further stated, “we have no evidence they are “flying saucers”; conversely we have no evidence they are not “flying saucers.” We don't know what they are.“

To be clear, the UFOs were not just “blips on a screen” they were simultaneously witnessed from the ground as well as from the air (radar/visual sightings) by the pilots pursuing them in addition to civilian airline pilots.

In an interview with “The Alexandria Gazette,” James Ritchy, an “air traffic controller and radar specialist” for The Washington Air Traffic Control Center said, “These objects were about 30 miles from the airport when we first made contact with them. We spotted 12 objects, and judged that they were moving in a southeasterly direction at a speed of about 40 mph . . .. The Air Force sent some jet planes up to investigate, and we would help 'vector' the pilots toward the objects . . ..

When we 'vector' a plane onto an object, we are in radar contact with both the object and the plane, and also in radio contact with the pilot of the plane. We keep telling the pilot how to turn to approach the object until he makes a sighting. The first jet pilot to go out Saturday night reported that he sighted a steady white light that appeared to be about 10 miles distant. When we tried to draw closer, it just disappeared . . ..

A commercial pilot got much closer to one of the objects, and reported to us that he sighted a yellow light that appeared to turn red and then yellow again. He reported to us that the object appeared to be about two miles away and the flying parallel with him.

Radar confirmed that he was between two and three miles from the object.

A third pilot sighted two bluish lights and later five more white lights. Our radar continued to show unidentified objects through the night, until 6 a.m. the next morning, but the pilots did not get closer to them."

The pursuit planes used were F-94s with a top speed of 600 mph. The targets (UFOs) were tracked at speeds as slow as 90 mph and faster then that of their pursuers. (Substantially faster, as when planes approached in some instances, the UFOs would simply disappear from radar—presumably retreating faster then it took the “radar antenna” to make a full sweep).

As one might imagine, since this was an ongoing phenomenon (for two weeks) and it was taking place near the nation’s capitol, it created quite a hubbub! With telegrams, phone calls and letters by the thousands pouring into the Pentagon, as well as pressure from the constituents of local Congressman, and topping it off with a lot of noise from the media; the powers-that-be needed to do something, and quickly! That something ended up initiating “the largest press conference held since the end of the Second World War.”

On July 29th at 4:00 pm in the conference room at the Pentagon, Major General John A. Samford, Director of Intelligence of the Air Force proceeded to engage in the one of the largest cover-ups ever perpetrated on the American public! With him in this machination was Major General Roger M. Ramey, Director of Operations, a veteran in confabulating UFO events (a la Roswell), Colonel Donald L. Bower, Technical Analysis Division, ATIC (Air Technical Intelligence Center), Captain Roy L. James, Electronic Branch, ATIC, Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, Aerial Phenomena Branch, (head of Project Blue and future author of “The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects) ATIC, and Mr. Burgoyne L. Griffing, Electronics Branch, ATIC.

On the other side of the table were the media’s elite, top correspondents from all the major newspapers and national magazines were in attendance; heavy hitters from radio and the new medium, “TV” were also there; in the midst of that crowd was one “Major Donald E. Keyhoe,” who had penned, “The Flying Saucers Are Real” and was a considerable thorn in the Air Force’s side.

Samford’s opening statement recapped the Air Force’s investigation of the UFO phenomenon since 1947; he mentioned the Air Force’s concern of possible air born menaces to the United States, talked about Project Saucer (Project Sign) and it’s current “more improved” organization. He noted the mass amount of reports that have been analyzed, and quickly put them to rest as some easily explainable phenomenon, e.g., our own aircraft, weather aberrations, hoaxes etc.

His oratory was mild mannered and done in an academic fashion; Keyhoe later commented that the “tension in the crowd was eased” by his simple explanations of the UFOs. Samford didn’t shy away from the “20%” of the reports that couldn’t be “identified,” either, and gave the impression that with more data those could be laid to rest as well.

In concluding he made a point that the Air Force’s role was to ensure that UFO sightings didn’t pose a threat to the United States; he said there was no pattern to indicate there was one.

At this point the rest of the conference would proceed as a Q & A session with the reporters. As would be expected, the reporters began a barrage of some very poignant questions, but Samford held his ground, and calmly gave rational explanations for the previous weeks UFO sightings and consequent “radar tracks.”

When asked about “solid returns” Samford talked about “birds and temperature inversions”; when asked about multiple radar units tracking the same objects, “simultaneously” he mentioned the same phenomenon can pass from scope to scope, and indicated that the timing can be off. (I.e., it wasn’t simultaneous). When asked about the “expertise” of the radar operators he politely indicated that even the “best can be fooled.”

As you can see, no matter the question Samford and or one of his panel had a very “logical explanation” for the recent UFO phenomenon; even when he left room for further investigation he firmly stated, “there is nothing in them that is associated with materials or vehicles or missiles that are directed against the United States.”The conference lasted an hour and twenty minutes, at it’s finale the members of the media had a mixed response, some thought that Samford and his group were on the level, others didn’t buy it for a moment, but by and large they would “accept the more feasible explanations” and that is what would “go to print.”

The following day the “New York Times” published an article entitled, “Air Force Debunks ‘Saucers’ As Just ‘Natural Phenomena.’” The “Herald Tribune” published the same article, and the “Post” headlined an article, “Saucer Blips Over Capitol Laid To Heat.” The “AP” ran with “those stories” and premise was spread across the country.

Some might wonder how the press could be so naïve . . . but those were different times, and we were much more trustful of the powers-that-be. Still, after taking in Samford’s explanations, it must have given people pause if they had to board an airplane, since their very lives depend upon the air traffic controllers who apparently couldn’t tell a plane, or another solid object from a flock of birds and or heat inversions.

Blog Archive

The UFO Chronicles is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an
affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by
advertising and linking to Amazon.com.